Every one, although a sovereign, renounces a part of his sovereignty when he joins in forming a state; on this theory a nation may be partly sovereign amid the "Family of Nations." It is impossible for a nation to have absolute sovereignty while subject even in part to other authority.

Prior to the drafting of the Constitution sovereignty was vested separately in 13 states; delegates from which drafted and signed a formal constitution. This was by Congress submitted to conventions of the separate states for ratification. It was duly ratified and the people of those states were welded into a nation under the title "The United States." State lines were retained and were essential, for the nation could only be identified by the boundaries of the states.

Extensive sovereignty was vested in the nation and the remainder was retained by the states and the people. It was impossible to confer sovereignty on the nation except by consent of the people and the states. It was through state mechanism that the constitution was ratified; it was by state conventions, perhaps representing their people. The accepted view is that, we have sovereignty in the states and nation, and by construction the ultimate unused power is in the people.

The first eleven amendments are limitations upon national powers. The later amendments appear to be an expansion of national sovereignty. The effect of all amendments is either to modify, increase or diminish sovereignty. To change sovereignty by amendment of the constitution it requires affirmative action of the nation through Congress and the approval of the states. Amendments are then founded on the consent and positive acts of all parties; and thereby sovereignty is either conferred, limited or surrendered. Sovereignty can then be modified and limited by and through na

tional and state political processes-by the direct affirmative action of both.

The cases of Chisholm vs. Georgia 2 Dallas Penhallow vs. Doane 3 Dallas, and Texas vs. White 7 Wallace comprise a remarkably able treatise on Sovereignty. Sovereignty was nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but was studiously avoided. In the Chisholm case two of the judges said, that, by consenting to the Constitution, the States limited their sovereignty.

Chief Justice Chase, in Lane vs. Oregon and Texas vs. White 7 Wallace, said that the people of the United States constitute one government and without the States in union there could be no such political body as the United States.

Since the Creator must exist before the creature, the States antedated the nation. They were separate colonies at the date of the Revolution like Canada and Australia are today. Oppression against one drove all to a common defense, yet each held fast to its own proper sovereignty. Gradually they united for protection and this ended in confederation. By confederating, the States reduced, only to a meagre degree, their sovereignty.

Perhaps one of the most scientific discussions of sovereignty is found in Bluntschli's (German) work on the Theory of the State, Oxford edition, 1892. He says: "The state is the embodiment and personification of the national power. This power, considered in its highest dignity and greatest force is called sovereignty." Lexicographers state that the word "sovereignty" is of French origin, and means: the exercise of extreme power; dominion. The theory of sovereign power was developed under French feudalism and monarchy. It

was the ne plus ultra in government; the monarch held ultimate authority. This was the continental idea up to the 17th century; but the pendulum swung back, and representative government now gives no recognition to the idea that all power is vested in one single official. Distribution of power is now the desideratum.

Bluntschli clearly recognizes that at this stage of the world's civilization, a state is not a law unto itself; but is affected with international restraint; and subject to this, it is controlled by its own citizens through its contitutional charter. The state can no more, than the citizen, escape restraint and subjection. There is no universal system of government, ruling nations under all conditions and circumstances. Every free state adopt its system and puts it into operation, until outside superior power interferes and restrains. War often determines the sovereign rule of a state.

Senator Spooner in his masterly speech in the Senate in 1904 on the ratification of the Panama treaty, showed by copious citations from text writers, that one nation could hold a servitude in lands of another. This is unquestionable; but will not burdensome servitudes so held really operate as a limitation of sovereignty? How can a nation hold complete sovereignty if another holds a right of way or other encumbering servitudes over its territory? Under such conditions the servient state cannot be full master over its own lands and people. No one can be free while under the bonds of servitude!

If the sovereignty of a state is in the people, the question arises, who are the people? Not the citizenship, in mass, nor yet a majority. It has most forcibly been said, that when the people take sovereignty into their own hands revolution or anarchy must follow. Masses act from impulse; there is no deliberation, cool

discussion nor any application of the wholesome principle of the "check and balance." Where everybody seeks to rule, nobody can govern!

Sovereignty is a dangerous instrument when impulsively exercised either by a monarch or on the other hand by the whole body of the people, each one claiming a share of sovereign power. The safest form of government is where the ruling power is neither in one head nor in a combination of all citizens, but distributed among representative officials under constitutional regulation.

Some scientists assume sovereignty to be in the mass of the people; others in the state officials; others in one ruling head-the king or emperor. In the United States ultimate sovereignty is in the people, not singly, but as a body, with a portion of it delegated under our constitutional system to the states and the nation.

Sovereignty represents the whole power of the nation, and why can it not restrict, restrain or even abandon its power? Why may it not decline or refuse to exercise its full power? Or why may it not by compact or treaty place itself partially or wholly under the protection of another state?

Why may not a state accept additional territory, subject to any reasonable conditions or limitations of government or authority over it, which is reserved or specified in the compact or grant? No nation is above all law, contract or moral obligation. It would be a powerful nation that could ignore and defy the whole family of nations.

Even Bluntschli declares that: "If a state were responsible for the exercise of its sovereignty to another nation, its sovereignty would thereby be limited." This is the sum and substance of the whole contention, "in

a nut-shell." It is axiomatic and needs no demonstration.

The American people have lived so long under a divided and complex sovereignty that they have become experts in the doctrine of division and limitation of sovereignty. Under our system the jurisdiction, respectively, of the states and nation determine the sovereignty of each. They each have a limited jurisdiction, hence limited sovereignty. The jurisdiction being subject to change by constitutional amendment, sovereignty is not stable, but always subject to enlargement or to contraction according to existing constitutional conditions.

Works on international law show that nations limit their sovereignty by sending and receiving ambassadors and ministers plenipotentiary; by permitting armed ships of foreign nations in domestic waters; by giving permission to foreign armies to cross their territory; by accepting protection or suzerainty from another nation; by permitting outside nations to dictate matters of internal policy; and by treaties of alliance. In fact any joint undertaking between states, which is founded on binding compact would be a limitation on sovereignty, and, no doubt, the same result follows from permitting foreign nations to buy and hold buildings for ambassadorial purposes in another state or nation.

Our national Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine in numerous cases. In Schooner Exchange v. - McFadden 8 Cranch, Chief Justice Marshall gives a most interesting and instructive discussion of the rights of foreign ministers, ships of war, and the passage of foreign armies in domestic territory; and how these may affect sovereignty.

says:

In McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheaton, Marshall "That the sovereignty of the state extends to